Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.

There are a few things to say in relation to this.First of all, sodomy is practiced by a very great number of heterosexual couples too, both married and unmarried. A quick look on Google reveals a survey which demonstrated that 30% of the women surveyed in the States had engaged in it at least once. If you're going to annul their marriages too, you're gonna lose a lot of your audience.Secondly, you have yet to demonstrate how it is "obvious" that marriage makes sense only for heterosexual couples. If you try to make the case that marriage is to provide a stable family environment, then you have to start annulling the marriages of childless couples, as well as ignoring the evidence of stable, loving environments for adopted children with gay adoptive parents. If you argue that marriage is about society recognising a loving emotional and financial commitment for life for a couple, then it's impossible for that not to apply to gay couples. And if you argue that it's somehow unnatural or not normal, you are faced with the inarguable position that for gay people, their relationship is entirely natural and normal for them. There is no "obvious" to any of your position.And thirdly, as has been pointed out before, many societies have recognised - even encouraged - homosexual relationships. The cradles of Western civilization, Greece and Rome, are both examples of this. And a large part of the reason that that recognition was not in the context of their concept of marriage, was that that concept was very much to do with the subjugation of women's personal and property rights to men. We've improved that a lot since then, and marriage is now an invaluable context in which our modern societies can recognise loving homosexual relationships.People being gay does you no harm. It does no one any harm. Do the decent, loving, generous thing for your fellow men and women, and let them marry. They love each other, for heaven's sake !

Ok, I'm not gonna push the point - but if you are going to maintain that you have nothing personal against homosexual people, then you should be aware that many people will see "sodomites" as a somewhat pejorative term. There's no doubt that the sexual organs have evolved (you'd say they've been designed, but we'll agree to differ on that, for fear of going off topic), to fit into each other, and enable reproduction. Where we differ is that you think that is sufficient to support your prejudice - whereas I say "Yes - but so what ?"You see, to go from evolutionary fit, to moral judgment, you need a connecting logical argument. I believe you don't have one. Hence you sticking with "but it's not what they were designed for." That's not an argument - it's a restatement of a fact, which is irrelevant to marriage (unless you can provide a logical connection between the two). No. Abstract concepts cannot be hurt. They can be changed, however, so that they stop hurting people by discriminating against them. There were a few Victorian historians who ran that line - they were to some extent a product of the prejudices of their time. But I would be utterly fascinated to see you provide a reasoned argument, as to why an acceptance of homosexual relationships led to the downfall of Greece or Rome. (Not just a coincidence of the two states of affairs - a reasoned argument as to cause and effect).Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Mind rape is one hell of a loaded term. In searching for equality of sexuality, we are challenging entrenched attitudes, and looking to change them, yes. Just as we have (with some degree of success) done with other searches for equality - racial, women's, religious, disabled. Call it mind rape if you will (though frankly, it's so extreme and exaggerated, that you actually damage your case by using it), but it is the simple challenging of entrenched prejudice. Yes, I'm aware that's what you think is a pre-qualifier to marriage, but what is your view as to what marriage is for ? Clearly not every heterosexual couple who have sex together will be married - so what function does marriage fulfill, to differentiate those couples who are married, from those who aren't ? (I know you'll have guessed my next question, and be aware of a sort of bear trap here, but the question's important and valid).

I think you've misunderstood me. What I was asking is what you think marriage is for, as between heterosexual couples.

Ok, that's what it does, but I'm after the why. Its purpose. What benefits it brings. (After all, we're perfectly capable, as a race, of forming permanent bonds and procreating without marriage).

My iPad ran out of juice, about 3 seconds before I hit reply - grrr !I'll sort out a proper reply when I'm home and can get off my mobi.